The "Lens of Love" reapplied

A few years ago I wrote a post that was driven by a conversation we had with a friend of ours from church, one where I came to the conclusion that the core of Christianity can be summed up by one directive: Love God (and, in doing so, love your neighbor). Everything else naturally stems from it.

Since I believe that God is love and anything that is of love is of God (and vice versa!), I brought up the concept of a "lens of love" through which your actions can be filtered: do your actions pass the test of love?

At the time, I applied the post mainly to the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Recently, however, I was engaged in some debate about another part of Scripture that insists that only men can be pastors/elders in the church, and, as an offshoot, that women must submit to their husbands.

Now, either side can pick apart specific verses to make their case. One can point to the creation story of Adam and Eve as evidence of a "created order". Or one can argue that the historical context addresses false teachings (that happened to be done by women who had likewise been taught wrong) and not women themselves as a whole.

I do believe it's important to consider the historical and cultural context in which a verse in question was written. EVERYONE does this to some degree. I don't think there's anyone who really takes the Bible 100% literally, or we'd all be following a bunch of arcane rules about wearing jewelry, mixing fabrics, and dealing with women on the rag.

In this case, for instance, I'd argue that Scripture says masters should treat their slaves well, and that slaves should submit to their masters, but that doesn't mean the Bible condones slavery-- it was just addressing examples of godly living for the circumstances of the day. Circumstances that include not only slavery but a very patriarchal society, one where women had few rights and were fully dependent on their husbands. In those days, "submit to your man" was very much the norm, maybe even a downright survival mechanism for women.

But where do you draw the line? 

After all, one could argue, even applying context is just another form of human (i.e. fallible) interpretation, so when you encounter specific guidance like this, where do you draw the line between applying contextual interpretation, and taking it literally (ignoring, for the moment, that even literal interpretation involves linguistic context)?

Well, that's where the "lens of love" comes into play.

No matter how you slice and dice it, claiming that only men can be pastors and that husbands must be heads of the household says only one glaringly obvious thing: that women are inferior to men. The "best" arguments I've seen in favor of these principles are always quick to defend themselves against this charge, insisting that men and women are indeed equal beings in the eyes of the Lord, they just have different roles to play. Biologically, that may be true-- Schwarzenegger's "Junior" notwithstanding, women are the ones who bear children.

But we're more than just biological beings, aren't we? That's the whole point of having a spirit and a soul, the whole point of being created in God's image.

So if you're saying that men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord but have different roles to play, you're basically saying that men and women are "separate but equal". Gee-- why does that sound so familiar? That didn't really fly too well during the civil rights movement, and it doesn't really fly too well today. And for good reason:

When you examine this claim, that one fellow human being is inferior to you, through the "lens of love", it is most decidedly NOT a loving claim. By any stretch of the imagination. It fails the "love" test. You cannot claim that men and women have equal worth and yet relegate them to specific roles within the church and family based solely on gender. Therefore, I reject the notion that only men can be pastors or that women should submit to their husbands. Not because I'm part of a culture that promotes feminist ideals, but because those notions are the antithesis to love.

This is also why I continue to circle back to the single, lone directive in the Bible that is completely free of cultural and historical context: Love God, love your neighbor. Everything else just follows. And in this case, loving your neighbor means treating them and valuing them as human beings of equal worth to your own, no more, no less.

N'est-ce-pas?

Judge Not...

A few things have come to a head this week to inspire this post.

It started on Monday, when my friend Mitch and I had some interesting conversations over coffee (well, tea) on a variety of topics, including being judgmental of others, and how we ought to refrain from it. We didn't delve into this topic deeply, but I feel like even that brief discussion opened my eyes and ears to picking up that same message elsewhere.  

On Tuesday, I read a blog post from Dan Pearce, of Single Dad Laughing fame, that summed up, quite humorously, the various ways people not only butt into your business, but judge you for the things you do and the decisions you make. I saw myself in quite a few of these, both as having been a recipient of said judgment, and in being guilty of judging others:

http://www.danoah.com/2013/02/20-things-that-aint-none-of-your-business.html/

I'm currently in the midst of reading "The Grace Awakening" by Chuck Swindoll, and yesterday I got to a chapter about letting go. The main point was that God's grace allows you the freedom to either choose to follow him or succumb to the same sinful temptations you were unable to fight off without his help. This freedom, however, also extends to others and how you deal with them. If they are to have true freedom to pursue grace, then you must let them go, and that means refraining from interfering with their decisions. It's up to God to work through those decisions and work in their lives, and it's not up to you to decide what constitutes a poor decision or a good one. In other words: butt out, don't judge, and just continue to show them love and compassion.

Then today I came across this graphic posted on Believe Out Loud's page:

I liked it because, as I've stated in previous blog posts, the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" adage has never sat well with me. And today it occurred to me that the "hate the sin" portion is actually a form of judgment. And judgment, by its very nature, is unloving. So how can you love yet hate at the same time? You can't.

Some might interpret this to mean that loving the person without hating the sin means condoning his sin, but I don't believe that's the case. A person's sin should not be within our realm to pass judgment on-- that is solely God's domain. It's not even our business to decide what is and what isn't sin. Again, that's entirely between God and the "sinner". All we can do, all we should do, is take our fellow, fallible human being and love them.

And how best to love someone than by refraining from passing judgment on them?

Heaven and Hell

Two years ago, I blogged about how love of God and love for your fellow man is exemplified by actions that pass the "lens of love" test: http://heckledtrio.blogspot.com/2010/11/your-neighbor-that-all-to-it.html. Any "true Christian" behavior should stem from that basic principle.

I think the flip side of that is true, as well: that God loves you and that everything he does for you is likewise through that "lens of love", because he wants what is best for you.

As straightforward as this concept may appear, it also seems at odds with what Jesus said in John 14:6 : "... no one comes to the Father except through me". Many Christians interpret this to mean that if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior while on this earth, you will forever be condemned to an eternity in hell. I'm not so sure it's that simple, and to me, it doesn't jive with the notion of a loving God.

Now, I do actually believe that you only get to God through Jesus. However, I believe it with the following caveats:

1. You can do this after death as well as in life.
2. The way you live your life is the way you live your afterlife (and subsequently, dictates whether you go to "heaven" or "hell")
3. I absolutely do not believe in the literal "fire and brimstone" notion of hell. I believe hell is, quite simply, being removed from God.

Allow me to expand further:

One of my favorite books by C.S. Lewis is called "The Great Divorce". In story-like fashion, it paints a picture of what Lewis speculates heaven and hell might be like. Hell is, in essence, populated by self-absorbed people who cannot let go of their earthly desires, be it for money, fame, or physical pleasures. It is a depressing place to live, not because its residents are on fire with sulfur, but because everyone is so self-centered, jealous, greedy, spiteful and everything else they were while alive. Once in a while, a bus arrives from heaven and transports hell's residents to heaven. Heaven is a bright, beautiful, breathtaking place to live, and each passenger meets an "angel" of sorts who tries to persuade him/her to move to heaven. It is not an easy feat: because they are not well-developed, they cannot easily move about heaven. Even walking on blades of grass is a tormenting and near-impossible endeavor. The angels assure them, however, that with time and further development, their ghostly bodies will become stronger and more solid, and better able to navigate the heavenly realm. One by one, however, the angels fail as the passengers shrink away from this notion of hard work, offering up excuse after excuse. One man, a musician, must get back to hell so he can give a grand performance (vanity). Another is unwilling to give up his giant, luxurious mansion in hell (greed). Another man is unable to let go of his addictions (manifested in the form of a demon attached to his shoulder) because he cannot bear the initial, fleeting pain of slaying the demon, and because he has grown accustomed to having this demon around as a crutch. As with everyone else who eventually boards the bus back to hell, he cannot look past his earthly desires and feelings to see that a small amount of pain in giving them up is worth it to be able to live in paradise.

This story exemplifies the notion the way you are now, in life, is the way you will be when you die.

This also ties in to my belief that you have a chance to accept Christ when you die.

HOWEVER. (before you get up in arms about that statement) This does not mean that I believe you can conduct yourself willy-nilly and do anything you like when you're alive, because you've got a "last chance" conversion opportunity the moment you die. It doesn't work that way, either, because it all boils down to the condition of your heart.

The man who religiously attends church, tithes, and outwardly professes piety but inwardly remains full of deception, greed, envy, lust and vanity, will likewise carry these "deadly sins" with him when he dies, affecting his ability to fully embrace Christ, both while living and when dead.

The staunch atheist today? Will continue to be a staunch atheist when he dies. He will carry this closed-heartedness with him, so that even when faced with Jesus himself, he will refuse to believe.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is someone like my grandmother, who is the most selfless, caring and kind person I've ever met-- much more so than many so-called Christians. Her heart and ensuing behavior are the epitome of "Christ-like". But she happened to be raised in a country that had different (or none at all) religious beliefs. Many Christians would say that yes, indeed, she'd spend an eternity removed from God, simply because she wasn't fortunate enough to grow up in a place where God was talked about. I don't buy that. I believe that if she had had the opportunity to learn about God and Jesus while she was alive, she would have readily accepted him. And that's the main thing: she had a heart that was already receptive to Christ! When she died and met her maker, I have no doubt that she willingly accepted him then.

In a nutshell, to me, "going through Christ" does not necessarily involve openly professing belief in him, saying the sinner's prayer, and getting baptized. To me, "going through Christ" means being Christ-like yourself-- having a heart that is open to him. Everything else just naturally flows from there, from accepting God and Jesus to doing what its right, not because it's an "insurance" maneuver to secure a place in heaven, but because it's what you feel is the right thing to do. Going to heaven (i.e. spending eternity in God's presence)? Also flows naturally from all that.

It all boils down to the condition of your heart. God sees your heart, and allows you to respond accordingly, no matter what your circumstances. That, to me, is love.

On Tithing

I thought I'd start this post with a bit of Halloween-related funny, brought to you by Eugene Cho, a pastor in SF whom I follow on Twitter:

Hmm, I wonder who raided her son's bulging, overweight sack of candy before leaving for work this morning... *whistles innocently*  ;-)

Seriously, though, where did this concept of "10%" even come about, in the first place? I'll admit that I have not read through the entire Bible from cover to cover, but I'd be willing to wager that it doesn't dictate an exact figure. We've been attending our church for 4.5 years, and while we give regularly to it, we do not subscribe to any notions of adhering strictly to a man-made percentage.

Now, what I do believe in, regardless of exact figures or rules about net vs. gross income, is in using the income you are blessed to receive, to help others in need. Isn't that the original purpose of tithing?

We have a friend/co-worker who has fairly liberal beliefs, and while most churches are too confining for someone like him, his actions are often more Christian than almost anyone else I know. He applies the true intent of tithing. He does not (necessarily) give to a particular church. He makes micro-loans on Kiva. He donates to clean water projects. His causes focus on the plight of people truly in need, mostly in other, poorer countries, and that's where he tithes. If that is not the spirit of Jesus's command to "love one another", I don't know what is.

I think too often we get caught up in the rules and regulations of religion, and lose sight of what's really, ultimately important: Love God and love one another. And I don't believe that you have to count out 10% of your income, to the penny, and give it all to your church, in order to express that love. Unless, of course, that's what you feel called to do. I believe that that sort of giving should be done in a true spirit of charity and love, and not out of obligation to follow some arbitrary, man-made rules.

Our own pastor summed it up best during a group class once. When the topic of tithing came up, one guy posed exactly the sort of situation my co-worker is already in. He has some favorite causes he would like to donate to. Should he give 10% to the church and then those causes on top of it? Or can those causes count as part of that 10%?

Pastor's reply? "That's between you and God."

Amen!

Book Review: Just In Case You Ever Wonder

Just In Case You Ever Wonder by Max Lucado. Illustrated by Toni Goffe.

Let me start out by saying that I generally enjoy Max Lucado's works. His adult books are easy to read and express common-sense concepts about faith in bite-sized chunks that are easy to chew on and digest. So I was looking forward to reading this to my 7-year-old son at bedtime when I received it. Since it was in e-book format, I turned off the light, snuggled into bed next to him, and turned on the iPad. Cozy, right? Well, on to the book itself...

Just In Case You Ever Wonder is a Christian children's book that looks as if it were meant for young children-- not many words, lots of pictures. But the content is really geared more towards older children. The basic premise of the story is sweet and innocuous enough: told from a parent's point of view, it is a reminder to children that their parents will always be there for them and will always love them. A good message....

... until I got to the part about scary noises at night and seeing monsters in shadows. That bothered me. I can see how such a notion can be planted into a young child's head and cause problems. I get that the idea was to reassure the child that their parents (and God) will love and protect them even when they're scared, but I think better examples could have been used. Not every kid thinks there are monsters under the bed, and maybe now they will!

The book then trails off a bit into the topic of heaven and how wonderful it is. Which is also nice, but seems strangely out of place in a book that starts strongly with the message that a child can turn to his parents and to God for love and support. 

All in all, I thought the *overall* message of the book was nice-- "I'm here for you no matter what"-- and that's something I definitely want to impart to my child. But the way this idea was presented felt rather disjointed and disorganized, on top of the use of some poor examples. This probably won't be a book I'll be passing along to anyone as a gift. I definitely think there are better books out there that can present this idea, with better examples and better-flowing content.


Note: I received a complimentary copy of this book through booksneeze.com in exchange for honest feedback about the book. The opinions expressed in this review are solely my own.

Why me, God?

Today's "One Big Happy" cartoon really seemed to fit in well with the season of thanksgiving and being grateful for what you have. Insane Black Friday (weekend) crowds notwithstanding, of course ;-)

Here's little Ruthie spouting off another of her funny "the things kids say!" type of nuggets that makes the comic endearing:



Really makes you think, doesn't it? Too often people turn to God only when things are going wrong with their lives. Sometimes they seek his help because they have nowhere else to turn. Sometimes they realize they can't get comfort through anything else in this material world. And sometimes they simply lash out in anger, cursing God or blaming him for the troubles in their lives. No matter the reaction, it seems like they only think of him when they need something. Frankly, sometimes it takes a catastrophic event to turn an otherwise stoic's heart toward God to gain a little perspective.

Much rarer, however, is turning to God with a grateful heart the rest of the time. Taking inventory of your life and, as Ruthie does in the comic above, realizing how fortunate you are compared to a lot of other people in this world. And thanking God when things go *well* with your life-- not just when you achieve a big milestone (such as passing an important exam, or getting a much-coveted job, or finding out you're pregnant when you've been trying for years), but when things are otherwise humming along smoothly in your life.

The Thanksgiving holiday is, these days, often a time for people to reflect on what they have to be thankful for. I will fully admit that most days, I don't really stop to think about all that's going well for me, because I just take it for granted. The Thanksgiving-themed list I outlined earlier this week contains a lot of things that are just part of my day-to-day existence, and therefore easy to simply take for granted.

How much more perspective we would gain on our lives, the next time we're commiserating about little things, if we would just pause and think about our life the way Ruthie does. And then, when we're asking "Why me, God?" it's not with a tone of anguish, but with a tone of reverence and awe.

Why me, God? Why me, indeed...

We're Just Like You (Only Prettier)

Yesterday I had fun recording Miranda Lambert's "Only Prettier" on Myspace karaoke. I had recently discovered the song while listening to the country stations on XM Radio, fell in love with it, and fell in love with the music video even more. Of course, since Myspace decided to restrict viewing of its videos to members only, and I know not everyone has a Myspace account (anymore), I had to extract the mp3 and post it on my Tumblr. Here it is, if you haven't seen the post already: http://heckledtrio.tumblr.com/post/1553581529

Now, most of my readers, I know, aren't really into country music and probably won't listen to the song. Fair enough. However, the music video is pretty awesome, and I highly encourage you to view it. If you really hate country music that much, just turn the volume all the way down. It's still a fun video to watch:



I loved that the 4 singers-- Miranda, Kellie Pickler, Laura Bell Bundy and Hillary Scott (of Lady Antebellum) played both the pretty-in-pastel, goody-two-shoes characters opposite their alter egos: the sexy, dressed-in-black, rebel bad girls. I thought the video was very well-done (and fun to watch!) in that regard.

But what I loved most about the video was the basic message of the song. It's sung mostly from the point of view of the "bad girls", but it reveals that deep down, these bad girls that society likes to judge and look down upon are really no different from the rest of us. That society judges people by their actions and outward appearances, when it's a person's character that truly matters.

Sound familiar? Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech, perhaps? Mother Teresa reaching out to the world's poorest and most rejected? Jesus's basic message of extending love and compassion toward your neighbor, no matter who they might be?

At the end of the video, the girls have reached a sort of understanding-- instead of sneering and scoffing at each other, they give each other nods of understanding (if a bit begrudgingly) that they really aren't so different, after all. Not exactly embracing each other, Disney-ending-style, but at least it's a start. And I think that society would do well to begin down that path, too. To stop judging each other. That's God's job, because in the end, the person doing the judging is himself full of flaws and subject to the same judgment he passes on others. To realize that every person has dignity and worth deserves love and respect, not scorn and disdain. To actually treat each other with that love and respect.

It all goes back to my previous blog post on examining actions through the lens of love. Do your actions pass that test?

At the beginning of the video, both sets of girls were guilty of judging each other lovelessly. At the end, they started to see that such action was needless. And that's why I like the video-- it gives me some hope for humanity. Heaven knows we need a lot of it! ;-)

"Love Your Neighbor"-- that's all to it

A few weeks ago, our pastor did a sermon on love: the way you love God is to love people. 1 John 4:20-21 best sums it up:

If anyone says "I love God", yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. (NIV)


It's a pretty straightforward verse, isn't it? And it basically sums up the core of what I believe about Christianity, the core of everything Jesus taught. Moses came down the mountain with 10 commandments, but Jesus reduced it to the most important: Love God (and in doing so, love your neighbor). Everything else follows from there. Seems simple, doesn't it? How on earth this basic message got twisted into the kind of fundamentalist rhetoric we associate modern-day "Christians" with today is baffling.

Allan and I had lunch with our friend Matt today, and wound up having a really interesting conversation on this concept: who are we, as mere, fallible humans, to decide what is and what is not sinful? Even the word "sin" itself carries such negative connotations that we really *shouldn't* be any position to tell anyone whether or not they are sinning. Instead of focusing on that, why not take a different approach when deciding whether an action is right or not? Simply examine it under a lens of love.

Matt gives a great example (which I'm paraphrasing and expanding on):

Is drinking alcohol a sin? By itself? No. But if I'm with a friend who is an alcoholic and susceptible to falling off the wagon if I drink around him, then my taking a drink now becomes an act of selfishness that winds up hurting my friend. That is not love. Or if I drink to excess, damaging my health, I am hurting myself. That is not love. Or if I drink irresponsibly and get behind the wheel, I wind up hurting an innocent pedestrian. That is not love.

This same lens can be applied to just about everything in life, including the current debates (and theme of my last couple of blog posts) about homosexuality.

I believe that any question that is asked (usually in a context of decrying it) of homosexual relationships can also be asked of heterosexual relationships. Just substitute the first few letters, and the issues are identical. If it is harmful and destructive in one, it is harmful and destructive in the other, and so is not love. The gender of the partner you're in a relationship with is irrelevant.

- If I bounced from one unhealthy, meaningless relationship to another, I'm hurting myself (and potentially the other person), regardless of whether it's a man or woman.
- If I had multiple sex partners to fill some sort of empty void in my life, it's destructive behavior whether I'm sleeping with a man or a woman.
- If I cheat on my husband, it's devastating to him regardless of whether my lover was male or female.
- And if I'm in a loving and committed relationship with someone who is my partner in all life endeavors, through thick and thin, in sickness and in health-- that sort of relationship IS healthy and IS about love. Whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.

I'd like to conclude with something Pastor Paul Raushenbush wrote at the end of his book, "Teen Spirit: One World, Many Paths", in answer to a person questioning which religion is "right":

"I stick with my core belief that God is love and that anything that is of love is of God. That's a good test for (people) of different faiths: Does their religion promote love? Hinduism (for example), believes in a supreme God and calls upon all people to revere and love all forms of life. For me, this passes the test."

To me, that's all there really is to it. Does it promote love? Or does it harm someone, whether it's yourself or others, physically, emotionally, mentally or spiritually? That is the question.  Everything else just naturally stems from the answer to that question. Love God, love your neighbor. Can't have one without the other.

For Love of Animals (aka People Suck!)

This blog post has been well over a year in the making. It's never been far from my mind, but I've never taken the time to actually sit down and sort out the thoughts in my head. Oh, I've posted bits and pieces here and there. So let's take an older blog post of mine as the starting point:

(and yes, I know I'm prone to linking to older blog posts for some context, and I know people are loathe to click on them, but this time-- please do read them. There are thoughts there complement my thoughts here, and I didn't want to make this too long by repeating myself)

First off, my thoughts after visiting an Asian supermarket in Southern California-- markets which typically house lots of live animals meant for consumption. These poor creatures are treated accordingly, and it breaks my heart: http://heckledtrio.blogspot.com/2007/11/asian-delicacies.html

Secondly, my thoughts on my visit to Indonesia in October 2008. This blog post focused on the plight of that country's poor, which was bad enough: http://heckledtrio.blogspot.com/2008/11/rich-vs-poor-in-third-world-country.html

Equally depressing (if not more so) was a combination of the two: wanton disregard for the well-being of live animals meant for consumption in an Asian country.

During our 12-hour layover in Taiwan on the way from the US to Indonesia, we wandered around one of those open-air markets. It's about as you woud imagine-- very crowded, full of vendors hawking their wares and loudly trying to drum up business. A bit depressing and yet interesting at the same time. The "stalls" were full of all sorts of fruits and vegetables you wouldn't ordinarily find in the States. But then something really caught my attention. I was wandering along the street, taking in the sights and sounds and mentally converting posted prices back into dollars, when I was splashed with water.

I looked down and saw a man sorting out shallow wooden boxes full of fish. What I had thought were gleaming, freshly-caught, *dead* fish were actually still alive, and flopped about desperately. My initial disgust at getting the filthy water splashed in my face paled in comparison to the feeling of revulsion that grew as I watched the hapless animals flop about, suffocating. It only got worse. As I made my way along this part of the street, I saw other marine animals for sale: turtles, crabs, frogs. All still alive. All very much unhappy in their crowded nets. Stacked thoughtlessly atop each other, squished so close they had little room to move, let alone breathe freely. The sight broke my heart, and I turned away, having completely lost any interest in seeing the rest of the market.

If you've read my blog post that I linked to above, you'll know that this sort of thing isn't restricted to Asian (or other) countries-- they bring it here to the United States, and it is equally deplorable here-- maybe even more so, since we live in a culture that more or less values animal life.

And as I stated in that blog post, I have no problem with consumption of animals-- I'm no vegetarian, myself, after all, and if the animal can be raised and killed humanely and without suffering, that's fine. What I *do* have a problem with is the terrible conditions under which these animals are made to suffer as they await purchase and consumption. And often times, the slaughtering process is just as vile and pain-inducing.

All this brings me to the declaration I've often made: that I like animals much more than I like people. Animals may kill each other too, but they only kill for food or in self-defense. They don't subject each other to wanton cruelty just because they can. They don't exact suffering on other creatures. They don't torture smaller creatures for fun. They do what they have to in order to survive, and nothing more. This is why I am saddened when a sea turtle dies at the jaws of a hungry shark, but shrug my shoulders because that's the cycle of nature-- yet I am enraged beyond comprehension when a sea turtle dies at the cruel hands of man. There's a video out there of humans slaughtering turtles that have come ashore to lay eggs or just get some sun. I cannot bear to press the play button-- the preview shot in the video player shows a seashore stained dark red with blood. It is enough to turn my stomach. The last time I hit the play button on such a video, it showed dogs being skinned alive for their fur.

Whether it's deplorable farm conditions, heartless slaughter for fur, food or shell, outright torture and abuse, or neglect of house pets, all kinds of animal suffering at human hands makes me so angry I cannot help but loathe humanity as a whole. Humans heap such suffering on fellow human beings, as well, but somehow it seems worse when it's helpless animals.

Because of this, I often feel as if I am at odds with the whole Christian notion of "love thy neighbor" and commands to do good for your fellow man. I don't dispute the importance of it, and I don't mean to downplay the nobility of that command, nor the harsh reality of human suffering and abuse the world over, but I often feel like the plight of animals gets brushed aside or even forgotten in the process. No matter what country. Even this one. And it really gets my goat when animal lovers try to do good things and raise money for good causes (such as helping stranded animals in Haiti or rescuing the cold-stunned sea turtles off the Eastern coast of the US) only to be sneered at by so-called humanitarians that think this is a waste of money, that insist this money is better spent on rescuing humans. Hey-- you have your cause, I have mine. Just because I choose a particular one to donate my time and money to doesn't mean I don't care about the other plights of the world.

Still, whether its animal abuse, human abuse, environmental abuse, or what have you, one factor still remains common: Human beings suck. Period. Now you see why I'm so anti-social ;-P

When Blogging Changed My Life

Today's post comes courtesy of Tabitha. As part of her Blogoversary giveaway, I'm submitting my entry for the Starbucks gift card (my favorite prize of the bunch! ;-) ) with this blog post.

Her prompt reads:

Tell me about a time when blogging changed your life.
Now, rather than talk about *a* single instance, this blog shall be a twofold post:

Chapter 1 -- Making Friends

Let's see... I started blogging in 2004, writing a few posts on Tripod.com but mainly focusing on using Tripod's blog features to keep a baby diary for Todd, who was born that year. Serious blogging didn't really come onto the scene until 2005, when community/gaming site Grab.com, of which I was an active member at the time, came out with blog features. By then, I'd started making friends on Grab. The majority of my current blog subscribers, in fact, are people I met from Grab. They are folks of all ages, from all walks of life, and from all over the globe. When I started blogging, the community spilled over from the forums onto my blog. It wasn't unusual to see the comments section take on a life of their own, sometimes veering completely away from the original subject matter.

Anyway, it was here that I started to bloom socially. I'd always been an introvert, and still am. Online, I found myself interacting with people and socializing in ways that I never would offline. Blogging gave me a creative outlet and a sort of "personal" forum on which to hang out with my friends. I enjoyed writing, and I enjoyed the ensuing camaraderie. I even wound up meeting some of these online friends, from night out in Hollywood in a limo to a 4th of July BBQ in Salem, OR to Chicago O'Hare Airport to cloudy and rainy Wales to visiting the Grab HQ in Washington.

Before that, even, we all got together one New Year's Eve, plugged in our computer mics, and had some raucous fun with a Yahoo voice chat NYE party! Now THAT took some planning, considering everyone was in different timezones-- from Eastern Time in Michigan to early morning in the UK to... well, already well into the next DAY in Australia.

So yes, my social life was improving, even if it was in front of a computer. I met people I would never have otherwise met, and enjoyed learning new things about them.
In fact, I've never been a big fan of the terms "IRL" or "real life friends". Makes it sound like my online friends aren't my "real" friends. Nothing could be further from the truth. These folks aren't any less real than the people I can physically hear and see. That's why I prefer the term "offline" friends, to distinguish the medium through which we interact, rather than assign any labels to the supposed level of reality this friendships are. You could say blogging changed my life in that respect.

But probably my most amazing life-changing story comes not directly from blogging itself, but from one of the friendships forged through the social networking/blog site I started on.

Chapter 2 -- One such friend becomes a lifesaver

A while back, my marriage fell on rocky times. My husband and I seemed to be at an impasse, and then the turning point came unexpectedly: one of my online friends, “Callie”, suddenly wrote to me out of the blue describing her own marriage problems. Suddenly I found myself “counseling” her, writing words of comfort and advice that I know could not have come from my own head. I had no idea where these words and ideas were coming from-- I have absolutely no background in this sort of thing! And throughout the course of this “counseling”, I realized I was being a hypocrite, and that I should be applying the things I was telling her to my own marriage. Once I did, things began to improve. Our marriage is better than it ever was.

Another effect of my conversations with Callie is of a more spiritual nature. I was born and raised agnostic, and when it came to matters of God, I was still on the fence. My interaction with Callie (among other things that I'll save for some other post) left no doubt in my mind that God exists and that his hand was at work with us. First there was the matter of being able to give her advice. Where was it coming from? I am convinced it was inspired by God and I feel as if I caught a brief glimpse into what it must've been like for the divinely-guided Bible writers in their day. I just put my fingers to the keyboard and they practically went on autopilot. Second, there was Callie's point of view-- she later told me she had no idea why she picked me, a distant friend, to confide in-- she just felt guided to write to me. Apparently God had things to tell her AND me simultaneously. Since then, not only have our marriages greatly improved, but our spiritual lives have been recharged, as well.

If it weren't for Grab/blogging, I would never have met Callie (even though I have not, to this day, met her face to face). I am glad I did, for, as they say, the rest is history!

Then and Now (22 vs 32)

Today's inspiration comes from Tabitha, who in turn stole her blog idea from someone else. Hey, spread the joy, right? The theme today is to compare yourself: then vs. now. They did 5 years. My life has been pretty steady and unchanging for the past 5 years, so I thought I'd expand it to 10 years.

Career-wise:
1999: by the end of it I was halfway through my active duty career in the U.S. Army. Despite the ungodly hours, I was actually enjoying the routine and the concreteness of my work. Unfortunately, all that uprooting isn't very conducive to a stable family life, so I knew this wasn't what I was going to do long term. I had started taking computer science classes at the University of Maryland, which has branches on larger Army bases throughout the world and had, at the time, the most extensive online course offerings of any other college. Why computer science? Because I was in the Signal Corps, which fits in perfectly with that area of study, and the majority of my colleagues had degrees in some engineering field.

2009: wrapping up my 2nd year at Citrix Online alongside hubby. Still pondering what I want to do for the rest of my life, because programming and software engineering can be fun for a while, I just cannot scrounge up real interest or passion for it-- I do my job and that's it, I go home and don't want to think about it until the next day. These days I'm miffed that my husband not only gets paid more than I do for doing less work, but he also *enjoys* it very much :-P So yeah, much like 1999, I'm still on the search path for a suitable career.

Socially:
1999: I was living in Germany and living it up. Making up for my sheltered existence up until then by really letting loose: bar-hopping till 3am, dating guys that were all wrong for me, and generally enjoying being thousands of miles away from family. I worked hard and played hard, and decadent Europe was the perfect playground.

2009: Total opposite. I think I've gotten all my partying and wild living out of my system, and when I returned to the States and went back to school, where I met and married my husband, I seemed to turn into an old fuddy-duddy overnight. Relatively speaking, anyway. I remember a few years ago, celebrating a friend's birthday. We hit a bar after dinner, and I was already yawning and yearning for my bed... at 10pm! I wasn't even 30! These days my life is one long routine, and I like it just fine. I like the stability and comfort of a daily routine, and always crave it when I'm gone from it too long.

Family:
1999: Just the 'rents. And my grandmother, who had been living with us since I was 8. Of course, I was living in Germany this year, so there really wasn't any family nearby to speak of. I was single and enjoying the single life to its fullest. I figured I'd wait till I was 30 to get married, and then wait a few years after that to have kids. That is, if I even wanted kids. I was still on the fence and wasn't sure I liked them or the idea of having them.

2009: Family's still small: me, hubby, the boy. There's still the 'rents, but they're only 100 miles away instead of thousands (or, for my entire life before going off to the military, a few YARDS away :-P) Life has a funny way of turning out: got married and started a family a little sooner than I expected, but it's actually working out better this way. I'm still young enough to be able to handle a rambunctious kid and by the time he's old enough to leave the nest, I'll still be young enough to enjoy it! As for more kids-- nah, just the one. That's it. No more. We made sure of that. And other (people's) kids? I still don't like them. Sounds kind of funny coming from a woman who has a child of her own, but honestly, it's very different when it's someone else's kids, and I just can't stand being around them. They're loud and messy and yucky and germy and possess entirely different personalities that I'm not sure I can address/handle. As antisocial as I am around adults, I'm even worse around kids. What do you DO with them!?!?

Spiritually:
1999: A practicing agnostic ;-) No, seriously-- I wasn't raised to believe anything, but I wasn't raised to disbelieve anything, either. Religion was more of an outside curiosity. I knew that there was something bigger than us out there, but didn't know what it was nor did I really care to research it or even just give it much thought. If I had any passing interest in the Bible or religion in general, it was more from an academic standpoint, like learning about new cultures. Not that I even had *that* sort of interest in it back then.

2009: I definitely do believe in God and in Jesus. I believe that the Bible *is* inerrant-- it's our fallible human interpretation that is full of error and ego. I believe in a just God who will judge fairly, despite what (decidedly human) fundamentalists insist on. Yet I still have lots and lots of questions. There are still things I don't profess to understand, and there is much with established Christian doctrine that I either don't get or outright disagree with. I believe faith and intellect are closely tied together, not mutually exclusive. And I'm always learning.

Hm, I think that about covers the major aspects of my life. Oh, save for one more: this last one comes at Allan's suggestion:

1999: Still innocently exploring, um, things.

2009: The woman who out-pervs her husband at nearly every turn, and on whom even raucous guys like Joe refuse to turn their backs.

O:-D

Brush your teeth or you're going to hell!

A couple of months ago, a co-worker and I were discussing religion, and man's tendency to twist religious concepts and invent rules and regulations of their own making. To paraphrase his example: "Muhammad told people to brush their teeth. That doesn't mean they're going to hell if they don't, or to heaven if they do. It's simply a matter of hygiene: your rotten teeth stink!"

That's the way I view a lot of the biblical teachings: the majority of them are guidelines for good, healthful (both spiritual and physical) living. Quarantining sick people and cleansing yourself thoroughly after handling blood are good health practices designed to keep yourself and the general population healthy. That doesn't mean you're a hell-bound sinner if you don't.

I was reminded of this discussion while reading Tabitha's blog entry about a small group study our church is conducting, a study based on the Beatitudes (Jesus' famous Sermon on the Mount-- you know, "blessed are the peacemakers..." or cheesemakers, if you're a Monty Python fan) My comments centered around one chapter of the study I particularly took issue with: the accountability factor.

Basically, the idea is to find a trustworthy friend and bare your soul to him/her, enabling you to make a fresh start of sorts. I even read a whole book (unrelated to the study) that was dedicated to this very idea.

Now, I firmly believe that to make any sort of spiritual progress, it IS important to come clean with God about all the hurts and hangups in your past and ones you're struggling with. I believe it's important to take stock of what you've done with your life so far in order to make a determined effort to move on. It's a little bit like twelve-step programs: the first step is admitting you have a problem.

I *also* believe that if you indeed have a close friend who is trustworthy enough to share your deepest, darkest secrets with, it can be a healing experience. I absolutely agree that it can be beneficial to be able to talk to someone about it, rather than have a "one-sided" conversation with God.

So far, so good. I'm on board with the whole idea of sharing with someone...

... IF you actually know someone whom you trust enough. Ah... that can pose a challenge, right? But that shouldn't be a big deal, should it?

Not according to the study and to the book that I read. Their point of view is that it's IMPERATIVE that you go through this accountability exercise before you're free to move on and progress spiritually. Not just with God (which, as I said before, IS imperative, in my opinion), but with another person.

Now hold on. You're telling me that just because I don't happen to have a close and trustworthy enough friend to share this sort of thing with, I'm going to spiritually stagnate? I can't make progress in my own relationship with God until I find a fellow human to share with? I'm sorry, but I take real offense to that. It can take years to cultivate that sort of friendship, and to be told that that means I'll be treading water throughout those years is ridiculous.

One of the points the study uses to "prove" that this is the only way to go is, of course, Scripture. Specifically, James 5:16: "Admit your faults to one another and pray for each other so that you may be healed".

Which goes back to my first point. Again, I absolutely believe that line of Scripture is meant for our benefit. I do not doubt that it can be incredibly healing and helpful to be able to share with another person. I do not doubt that it's a totally different experience than just admitting your faults to God and praying by yourself. Again I am reminded of twelve-step groups and their atmosphere of complete acceptance, non-judgmentalism and "no excuses allowed". I can't emphasize enough that I do believe in it and am in no way denigrating the notion expressed in James 5:16.

However, I don't believe that NOT doing so is going to hinder your spiritual progress. I believe that there are a number of ways to come to terms with your past, learn from it, and move on, and while involving other human beings (a la "group therapy") is an excellent way to really be honest with yourself, I don't necessarily believe that it's the ONLY way. Brushing your teeth is not going to get you into heaven, and baring your soul to a friend is not a prerequisite for having a close relationship with God.

All this blathering and nary a conclusion in sight. I guess I just wanted to rant a bit about how this study and line of thinking is just another example of human beings making their interpretation of the Bible the ironclad, singular way to go. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Ah well. Just a couple weeks more and we're done with this study. And despite my vehement disagreement with this particular portion of it, I have to admit that the study itself *does* have a lot of good, general guidelines. I just don't appreciate feeling like I'm being punished because I haven't yet formed such a close, trusting friendship with someone else. It's hard enough as is without being pushed toward it by a handful of well-meaning "Bible thumpers"!

Okay, trying again...

Back in September I had every intention of blogging more often. I was feeling inspired, had some ideas of what I wanted to write about beyond the usual "Helly's monthly updates" and was only lacking in time. Before I knew it, October had flashed by, and here I sit, over a month later and nary a blog post written. Even Todd's baby diary is woefully out of date (but at least I have all the notes jotted down on a sticky, waiting to be transcribed onto electronic form!)

I realized that it had turned into a vicious cycle. A few days after I posted my last blog entry, I was teeming with ideas, and put them aside because I couldn't find a chunk of time to write. When I *did* find some time, I realized that the mood had passed, and that I would have more to make up for it, which in turn only fed my reluctance to actually *start*. And there started the cycle-- stop writing, feel guilty about it, feel overwhelmed by all the updates I want to post, postpone writing, begin cycle anew...

There is some truth to keeping the "wheels oiled" by writing everyday, or at least with frequent regularity, even if I don't think I have anything to write about. It gets (and more importantly, KEEPS) the creative juices flowing.

So, here I am, trying to start afresh. Maybe I should start some kind of "blog accountability" group with one or more folks, kind of like people do with diets and exercise-- keep each other accountable for writing regularly. Anyone interested? ;-)

And, to cap it all off, another one of my "postponed for so long it's crammed into one long rambling entry" updates:
Todd is adjusting well to first grade. He's enjoying school and even his after-school care program has so few kids that he gets pretty individualized attention. He and I visited my parents over Halloween weekend, where he dressed as a pumpkin and got to enjoy his first-ever trick-or-treat adventure, casing all the houses I used to visit when I was a kid. It was great seeing all our old neighbors again and catching up.

We took a venture into the housing market in October, working with a realtor and looking at homes. Next thing we knew, we'd put in an offer on one, but then financing didn't work out as well as we'd initially hoped. So now we're upgrading from a 1-bedroom to a 2-bedroom in the same apartment complex. Gives us room to stretch out and still save money.

Our church decided to expand from its building to a bigger venue, so right now we're meeting at a local movie theater. I don't really like it-- I think a theater (especially the one we're in) is a poor setting for something like a Sunday service-- hard to see, hard to move around in, too dark. At least it's just temporary, or so I hear, anyway. The upside to it is that this theater is much closer to our apartment! :-)

Santa Barbara is truly a small world-- a couple weekends ago we enjoyed a "Parents' Night Out" which our church sponsors every month. In October the kids enjoy a Harvest Party while the parents go out to dinner. Last year it was all church parents. This year, since we've opened a preschool, it was mainly preschool parents, the majority of which don't go to (our) church. So it was nice getting to meet some new parents... including one that works at Citrix Online, too! How about that! ;-)

Allan's uncle unfortunately passed away a couple weeks ago from complications due to the H1N1 virus. The media may overhype it (as it tends to do), but when it hits this close to home, you gotta admit that maybe all that attention is warranted. Our little family has gotten over its own bout with colds/seasonal flu last month.... just in time to get well and get free flu shots at work. So far, so good! Fingers crossed it stays that way the rest of the winter.

The remainder of this month promises to be busy. We pick up the keys to our new place on Friday, and two weeks after that we have to vacate our old place, so the next 2 weeks will be a flurry of moving (since we're moving to the building next door, it should be relatively easy to move a few boxes of stuff each day-- Todd's wagon should get plenty of use!) and cleaning, cleaning, cleaning! Then comes the Thanksgiving holiday and wouldn't you know it-- the last month of the year shall soon be upon us!

Let's see how many entries I get written between now and then, eh! ;-)

On the Bible and homosexuality

I think by now it's no secret that I've been traveling along my spiritual journey for some time now, and it's led to some unexpected roads. Someday I will write more in detail about it and about the events that shaped every turn in the road so far, but for now I wanted to touch on the main thing that has led me along my journey thus far, and that is the wealth of rational, logical arguments for the Christian faith. Anyone that knows me knows that I can't stand abstract thought, I prefer my thinking to be based on concrete logic and firm, tangible facts. It is why I have zero aesthetic sense, wouldn't know the first thing about decorating a home, and cannot appreciate art or music beyond it's immediate sensory appeal.

So it comes as no surprise that it was Christian apologists such as Lee Strobel (a former atheist) and C.S. Lewis (a former agnostic) that made the case for me. I think what made their books all the more compelling was the fact that they themselves came from the same background of unbelief and skepticism that I did, wrestled with the same doubts and questions I did (and still do) and that they also preferred to go about faith using a rational approach. It opened my eyes.

Now, there's no question that I'm still rather new at this journey. There are still things I don't quite comprehend, and while I accept the fact that I will never have ALL the answers, that's not stopping me from thinking about the issues foremost on my mind and continuing to seek out answers. An important part of this journey is studying the Bible. Now, I don't know if the Bible is supposed to be literally true, but even if none of the events actually happened (and we know there's archaeological evidence for some of it) the fact remains that there's a lot of wisdom and truth to be obtained from it. Jesus himself illlustrated his teachings with parables.

Having said that, one of the issues I wrestle with is that of reconciling what the Bible says about homosexuality. On the surface, the anti-gay rhetoric that many Christians spout while referencing Scripture seems to go against every sensibility I have. I have gay and lesbian friends. I voted No on Prop 8. That whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" spiel never sat well with me, and I never for a moment believed that a loving God would condemn people based on something that they cannot change, something that's as inherent to them as skin color.

So, what to make of it? How to refute those that would use the Bible, the same book to which I'm trying to adhere my life, to make such bigoted arguments? Sure, there was the whole argument that if you think homosexuality is a sin because of the Bible, then you should also refrain from wearing clothing made of mixed materials, or going near a woman when she's on the rag, etc etc... but even those arguments, like the ones they were meant to rebuff, only scratched the surface.

Then John Shore, a writer whose blog I follow (despite his having called me a freak and a loser-- all in jest, mind you! :-P) summed my feelings up perfectly with this (putting sin into the perspective of temptation):

But I AM tempted to drink too much alcohol. I AM tempted to gossip. I AM tempted to cheat on my taxes. I AM tempted to have emotional affairs on my wife. EVERY kind of sin, in one way or another, at one time or another, really and truly tempts me--and pretty regularly, too. But I am never, ever tempted to be gay--and I'm sure I cannot be. So ... it... very, very obviously not the same thing at all. There's something categorically different from all the kinds of sins you (and everybody else) ever mentions, and the "sin" of homosexuality. Putting them in the same category is ... not rationally defensible. I'm not advocating any position whatsoever---but I'm not giving up plain, simple reason. I KNOW that doesn't please God.

And then I came across this site, which I found from a link through Anita, one of the commenters on his blog:

http://www.sisterfriends-together.org/the-bible-and-homosexuality/

The site as a whole is mainly oriented towards women, but there's a lot of nuggets in there that apply to anyone-- gay, straight, man, woman, child. And that link above? Was exactly what I was looking for. A detailed refutation of the "clobber passages" you hear fundamentalists (and even more moderate Christians) quote. I felt... uplifted by what I read. Between John and Anita I felt like the things I'd been feeling and just known intuitively all along had finally been ascribed words. Detailed words. Which, as everyone knows, suits Helly (aka Miss Verbose) quite well ;-)

Food for thought. Lots to chew on. What do you think?

Love your neighbor, Simpsons-style

Some years ago I gave my friend Wayne a book for his birthday. It was called "The Gospel According to the Simpsons". Between the time that I purchased it from our university bookstore and the time I presented it to him, I read it (sorry, Wayne). And was pleasantly surprised. Who would've thought that nuggets of spiritual wisdom could be found in such a profane cartoon? But when you dig a little deeper, you find that deep down, the Simpson characters aren't as evil as they are sometimes made out to be. Moreover, many of the episodes subtly embody the essence of Biblical teachings in modern, everyday settings-- probably getting the point across far better than an outdated translation of the Bible could.

Take Homer, for instance. The quintessential bumbling fool. As many times as he goofs up, when it comes to serious matters, he does not stray. Though he has been tempted many times, he never cheats on his wife. When he's gone too far, he tries to make amends. And hell-raising Bart? How about that sincere prayer he recited the day before a dreaded exam that could decide whether he would be held back or not? It may have been a little rough around the edges, and contained none of the pious words you sometimes hear in chants and liturgies, but it came straight from the heart, which is by far the most important element in prayer. And to top it off? When the next day his prayers were answered and a freak snowstorm canceled school, he actually followed through his end of the bargain, fighting the temptation to play outdoors while he studied.

A few weeks ago an episode came out called "No Loan Again, Naturally" A brief synopsis: the Simpsons are unable to meet their mortgage payments when their interest rate skyrockets (sound familiar?) and their house is foreclosed and auctioned off. Feeling sorry for the Simpsons, their "Jesus freak" neighbor Flanders buys the house and leases it back to them for whatever they can afford till they get back on their feet. Rather than being grateful, however, the Simpsons take advantage of Flanders' generosity, forcing him to evict them. As he reviews the application of potential leasers, a Christian couple whose idea of fun makes Flanders look like a party animal, he finds himself reminiscing about his irreverent and irrelegious former neighbors-- with fondness. And he realizes that they are the ones he wants to live next to. After all, he says, you are only a saint when you're among sinners.

Now, some people might interpret that as Flanders elevating himself above non-Christians, but I actually think it's the opposite. His statement summarizes the whole of Jesus' teachings: "Love your neighbor". In Jesus' time, he was criticized by the religious leaders of his day-- they scoffed at him when he ate and drank and interacted with the most sordid of characters-- tax collectors (today's IRS agents :-D), prostitutes, rough-talking blue-collar workers, and *gasp* Gentiles! In modern times, self-righteous, so-called Christians do the same-- they plant a very obvious divide between "us" and "them", and heaven forbid anyone should cross that divide!

They are missing the point. How are they suppose to embody the love that Jesus did, unless they reach out to others who are not within their "circle"? It's easy to love people like you-- even the Mafia don takes care of his own. But loving those who are different? That takes some real selflessness. And humility. I read the perfect analogy in a book somewhere (the title and author escape me at the moment, my apologies): "Church is not a museum for saints. It's a hospital for sinners". Jesus himself came to earth to minister to the needy, not to waste time with pious and hypocritical religious leaders.

Sadly, some of today's Christians are little different from the religious leaders of Jesus' day. It is unfortunate that the term "Christian" has such negative connotations today because of such church-going, Bible-thumping, proselytizing religious folk. Isn't it sad that in a culture where "tolerance" is valued, and it is unacceptable to bash anyone for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), Christianity is the exception? Then it's open season. But... given the current "face" that the general public sees when they think of Christians, I can hardly blame them. I know I sure wouldn't want some self-righteous person treating me with disdain instead of respect. With hostility instead of love. With condemnation instead of acceptance. With judgment when it is not their place to judge.

Now, there are a lot of genuine, faithful believers out there. And they have done a lot of good in this world, no question. On the other hand, there's also been a lot of bloodshed, and the battles continue today (albeit a little less bloody in modern times). Seems like the good ones get drowned out by a few bad apples. And I think that's a shame. Just think-- if more of the Bible-thumpers would adhere to the simple command of "Love your neighbor", maybe the world would be a little more peaceful. Flanders came to understand that. And if Flanders can, so can anyone else ;-) Right?